Skip to: Navigation | Content | Footer

IPSO upholds Prince Harry complaint against Mail Online

The complaint followed an article published on Mail Online on 4 March 2017, headlined “Time to cool off! Happy (and hunky) Prince Harry enjoys a dip in the ocean as he and Meghan relax on the beach in Jamaica after his ‘wingman’s’ sun-drenched wedding.”

Author: News Desk

Posted on: 17 July 2017 08:25

IPSO upholds Prince Harry complaint against Mail Online

"The complainant had been photographed in circumstances in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy."

Prince Harry complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. IPSO upheld the complaint and has required Mail Online to publish this decision as a remedy to the breach.

The article reported that the complainant had recently attended a friend’s wedding in Jamaica. It was accompanied by photographs of the complainant wearing swimming shorts on a beach, at a beachside bar and in the sea.

The complainant said that these images had been taken in circumstances in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and while he was engaged in private activities unconnected to his public role. The photographs showed him wearing swimwear on a private beach; he had been unaware that he was being photographed; and he had not consented to the images’ publication. The complainant considered that no public interest was served by the article.

Mail Online said that it had been provided with credible information that the complainant had been on a public beach at the time the photographs were taken, and it had published them in good faith. While it regretted that it had been misinformed, it did not consider that the photographs had revealed intrinsically private information. It also noted that they had been published widely in the US and in one UK magazine.

The Committee found that the complainant had been photographed in circumstances in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. He had not consented to the images’ publication, and Mail Online had not sought to justify their publication in the public interest. Publishing photographs of the complainant engaged in private activities, without his knowledge and consent, represented a significant and unjustified intrusion in breach of Clause 2. The Committee upheld the complaint.

The complainant also raised concerns under Clause 1 (Accuracy) but this was not upheld.

comments powered by Disqus

Most read on InPublishing

These are the most read stories on the InPublishing website over the last 14 days, in order from the top.

Articles

My Publishing Life – Mark Allen

Mark Allen
Posted on: 9 November 2017

My Publishing Life – Adam Sherman

Adam Sherman
Posted on: 16 October 2017

5 minutes with… Cornelius Conlon

Cornelius Conlon
Posted on: 15 November 2017

5 minutes with… Jan de Roos

Jan de Roos
Posted on: 2 November 2017

iPlayer

Paul McNamee
Posted on: 26 September 2017

The Key Industry Dynamics

Jim Bilton
Posted on: 26 September 2017

Ad blocking: it’s not over

James Evelegh
Posted on: 2 November 2017

What membership really means for publishers

Carolyn Morgan
Posted on: 26 September 2017

The reader must pay!

James Evelegh
Posted on: 9 November 2017

Honing your mobile strategy

James Evelegh
Posted on: 26 October 2017

This list is based on data from Google Analytics, and is refreshed every 24 hours. (Last updated: 20/11/2017 06:34)

Find out more about

Featured job

Insights and Innovations Manager
Salary: Competitive
DC Thomson & Co. Ltd
Dundee

Featured in InPublishing Jobs

InPub Weekly: Sign-up

Click here to sign up for our free weekly email newsletter:

Sign up now!

Magazine registration

Next Top Tips Webinar

Processing, Permission and Personal Data - the 3Ps of GDPR that you must get right before May 2018

2.30-3pm (GMT), Wednesday 22 November 2017

Hellen Beveridge

FREE-TO-ATTEND

Webinar sponsored by

Publishing Partners Guide